Crises Likely To Reduce Office's Stature

Impeachment And The Election Dispute Will Diminish The Leader's Ability To Serve The Nation, Many Experts Say.

November 25, 2000|By Naftali Bendavid, Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — Either of the nation's possible presidents-elect, Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore, would face huge challenges governing after this year's bitterly contested election, many analysts say.

But some believe that whoever wins, the office of the presidency may have been damaged more seriously than either candidate, and for a period extending far beyond Bush or Gore.

Combined with a tortuous impeachment process that ended less than two years ago, the country has now faced two presidential controversies in fairly quick succession. Some observers say both have exposed flaws in the U.S. system for choosing and removing a president and have shed an unforgiving light on the human frailties of the men who hold the office.

If the majesty of the position is diminished by this double eruption, it may be much harder for the president to lead the nation, rally public opinion and prod Congress for a long time to come, some say.

"When the president of the United States is talking, that has a lot of effect, just because of the office," said Abner Mikva, a former White House counsel who also served as a Chicago congressman and a federal judge. "The impeachment and Mr. Clinton's conduct both diminished that impact. The result of this election will diminish it further."

If President Clinton's impeachment revealed an adulterous president and a politicized opposition, some say the current crisis spotlights two bickering, openly ambitious men and a mistake-prone voting system that may award the White House to the candidate who got fewer popular votes.

This is serious stuff for an American public accustomed to viewing its system of government as not only the best ever but perhaps the best possible.

"My question about the current imbroglio is whether it will acquaint Americans with a realistic conception of not only how badly or sloppily we conduct elections, but also other great failings in the political system," said James MacGregor Burns, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian. "Not only the mess itself, but how these two candidates behave in the mess--that could have a carryover into the legitimacy of their presidency and the respect that people have for it."

But others argued that the damage to the presidency may not be so great as it may seem. Despite the rawness of the wounds, these optimists say, both this controversy and the Clinton impeachment have provided lessons in how the American system works and proof that it does.

In the impeachment controversy, Clinton suffered a serious humiliation but was not removed from office, a result most Americans agreed with, according to polls. And in the current election frenzy, the courts are attempting to impose order.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), quoting former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's admonishment to be "humble in victory, courageous in defeat," said the victor can do much to restore the presidency's legitimacy.

"I believe the next president can rally the American people behind him," Durbin said. "The people in this country want a strong president, one who can succeed and lead. . . .

"If he shows himself to be gracious and sensitive to his opponent who lost, and has a diverse administration, there will be grousing on the talk shows for months, but most people want this country to succeed."

That will be harder, no doubt, because the new president will take office knowing that about half the voting public chose his opponent, and because Congress is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans and may be virtually paralyzed.

"This is a bitterly fought campaign with no decisive winner and a process that is going to be tainted by charges of manipulation from one side or the other," Durbin said. "It has to have an impact on the president's ability to lead. Election contests are the ugliest political exercises there are, and this will clearly retire the trophy."

Many observers see the tearing down of the president from a once-lofty pedestal as the continuation of a decades-long process beginning with Lyndon Johnson's tenure. While Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy were regarded as heroes, many came to believe Johnson botched the war in Vietnam and misled the public.

The process continued "through Watergate, through the failings of Jimmy Carter, through Iran-contra, through the Clinton scandals," said Allan Lichtman, chairman of American University's history department and author of "The Keys to the White House."

"We used to have a benevolent presidency or a textbook presidency," agreed John Orman, a presidency expert at Connecticut's Fairfield University. "Nobody ever thought the president would do something for his own selfish reasons--it was always the good of the country or the good of his party. Now it's the malevolent presidency. Whatever he does, he is second-guessed or third-guessed."